Not Feeling Safe in China

“China has reached a point where I do not feel safe being a professor and discussing even the economy, business and financial markets.”

By Elizabeth Redden
Christopher Balding, who successfully lobbied Cambridge University Press to unblock articles it censored at Beijing’s request, does not feel safe as a professor in China

An American professor who lost his post at a Chinese university is now leaving China, citing concerns about his personal safety.
“China has reached a point where I do not feel safe being a professor and discussing even the economy, business and financial markets,” Christopher Balding wrote in a blog post about his departure from Peking University HSBC Business School, in Shenzhen, and his subsequent decision to leave China.
Balding has a prolific presence on Twitter, which is blocked in China, and frequently appears in the media commenting on issues related to the Chinese economy, including as a television commentator for Bloomberg and in opinion pieces for Bloomberg and Foreign Policy. 

In August of last year, Balding spearheaded a petition calling on Cambridge University Press to resist the Chinese government’s demand that it censor articles in the China Quarterly journal. (Cambridge originally assented to the government’s request to block access to hundreds of journal articles in mainland China, but reversed course after coming under heavy criticism from academics like Balding.)
Balding could be sharply critical of the Chinese government, tweeting in recent weeks about China's human rights record and the threat he sees Beijing as posing to the liberal world order -- subjects he also addressed in the blog post about his departure.

Capitalist Roader Balding@BaldingsWorld
Maybe it isn't the fact that China is developing economically, but the fact that China is an illiberal authoritarian regime who has no respect for human rights
Replying to @LunaLinCN: Some countries are alarmed, challenged and traumatised by the speed of China’s rise.@
8:15 AM - Jul 14, 2018
117
47 people are talking about this


Capitalist Roader Balding@BaldingsWorld
Beijing has made it clear for sometime it wants to do away with the liberal international order. Continued multilateral steps toward openness and respect for human rights are dead if you accept the Chinese vision. Trump in history will be a blip. Focus on what matters
Abigail Grace@abigailcgrace: Biggest takeaway from the Central Work Conference? China is publicly indicating that it will now advance “major power diplomacy” on its own terms. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1571296.shtml …
3:47 AM - Jun 26, 2018
23
23 people are talking about this

In his blog post, Balding said the HSBC Business School informed him in early November -- not long after the Cambridge University Press petition -- that it would not renew his contract. 

He did not specify the reason his contract was not renewed but made clear in his blog post that he believes it was different than the “official” reason he was given.
“Despite technical protections, I knew and accepted the risks of working for the primary university in China run by the Communist Party in China as a self-professed libertarian. Though provided an 'official' reason for not renewing my contract, my conscience is clean and I can document most everything that demonstrates the contrary should I ever need to prove otherwise. I know the unspoken reason for my dismissal. You do not work under the Communist Party without knowing the risks," Balding wrote.
HSBC Business School's media office did not respond to requests for comment. 

However, the dean of the business school, Hai Wen, told The Wall Street Journal that an evaluation of Balding found “poor” performance in teaching, research and other areas. 

The dean said that Balding's dismissal was a “normal academic employment decision.”
Balding declined to elaborate about the circumstances of his dismissal, but said via email, "I think the academy should be increasingly concerned about the silencing of opinions of Chinese and foreign academics working in China."
"Having enjoyed my time in China with wonderful research opportunities, I think my record of professional advancement during my tenure at the HSBC Business School of Peking University as well my impactful research across a variety of topics and channels speaks for itself. My standards in the classroom were drawn from the highest quality syllabi, requirements for student work and honesty, which I will continue to stand behind. I will always think back with fondness to this time."

The Climate for Foreign Scholars in China
Balding’s departure comes at a time of increasing concern about a crackdown on academic freedom in China and a continuing shrinking of the space for critical academic discourse. 

Still, Balding’s blog entry is striking for the degree to which he -- as an American academic employed by a Chinese university -- expressed fear for his physical safety.
”One of my biggest fears living in China has always been that I would be detained,” he wrote. ”Though I happily pointed out the absurdity of the rapidly encroaching authoritarianism, a fact which continues to elude so many experts not living in China, I tried to make sure I knew where the line was and did not cross it. There is a profound sense of relief to be leaving safely knowing others, Chinese or foreigners, who have had significantly greater difficulties than myself. There are many cases which resulted in significantly more problems for them. I know I am blessed to make it out.”
Louisa Lim, a senior lecturer in journalism at the University of Melbourne and author of the book The People’s Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited, described Balding’s case as "the latest in a series of worrying developments regarding constraints upon foreign academics working in, or on, China."
"Over the last couple of years, we have heard reports of surveillance, harassment and intimidation, including the weeklong detention of the Australian Chinese professor Feng Chongyi" in spring of 2017, Lim said via email. 

"I co-host a podcast, The Little Red Podcast, and we had an episode on the intimidation and harassment of academics where we interviewed a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Melbourne, Dayton Lekner, who spent some time in China researching the 1957-1959 Anti-Rightist movement, and was subject to a police interrogation on his research."
“That a junior scholar should be subjected to such outright intimidation shows the granular nature of state surveillance of foreign academics. In that episode, we also made an open callout for academics to get in touch with their stories, and we did hear from academics working in fields similar to Christopher Balding's who expressed their fears regarding working in China, and other experiences of surveillance by state security. Many foreign academics are reluctant to speak openly about their concerns, having invested their careers in having access to China, but Christopher Balding's piece does track with what many others are saying behind closed doors.”
“In recent years, we've seen what amounts to a forcible closing of the Chinese mind,” Lim added. “Not only are there fewer academic exchanges, but recently we're even hearing of examples of Western textbooks and writings being censored in Chinese classrooms with sections blocked out. In the current climate, the kind of unspoken constraints placed upon academic research are making partnerships between Chinese and Western academics harder to manage. One cause of concern for Western academics is whether their actions -- or writings -- could cause trouble for Chinese colleagues or co-authors, and the burden of this responsibility sometimes causes Western academics to self-censor or temper their public behavior.”
Jonathan Sullivan, the director of the China Policy Institute at the University of Nottingham, in England, said that the situation has become “significantly tighter” across the board in China. 

But while he said the situation for Chinese academics specifically has deteriorated -- “criticism is much less tolerated and expressions of loyalty are becoming the norm” -- he added that “foreign academics are an insignificant part of this bigger picture.”
"Not to diminish the experiences of any foreign colleagues working in China, I’m sure there are individual situations that I would find intolerable, but conditions are much worse for Chinese citizens in academia and all other sectors," Sullivan said in an email. 

"If 'we' don’t like it 'we' can up and leave, as many academics, journalists, businesspeople etc. have done … The chances of a foreign academic being arrested or otherwise punished is low -- it is much more likely that if you upset the authorities you’ll be denied a work visa or your employer encouraged to make your life more difficult with extra teaching etc."

“I have noticed a hardening of some opinions (sometimes performative for others in the room), a reluctance among others to discuss certain topics and less enthusiasm for collaboration. ” 

Sullivan noted that the projects are on topics related to popular culture and politics, "so they involve some criticism but it's not highly sensitive." 

He also noted that his perspective comes from someone who visits China regularly but does not live or work there.

After Criticism, Publisher Reverses Decision to Bow to China’s Censors

By CHRIS BUCKLEY

BEIJING — One of the world’s leading academic publishers, Cambridge University Press, on Monday abruptly reversed its decision to bow to censorship of a leading journal on contemporary China, after its’ agreement to remove offending papers from its website in China ignited condemnation from academics.

The Cambridge University Press said last week that it had gone along with demands from a Chinese publishing import agency and cut 315 papers from the online version of the journal, China Quarterly, that can be read in China.
Academics criticized the decision as a worrisome intrusion of censorship into international academic research where the Chinese government has become increasingly energetic in pushing its views, and in discouraging work that offends it.
The pressure from academics worked.

Tim Pringle, the editor of China Quarterly, said on Twitter that the press “intends to repost immediately the articles removed from its website in China.”
Professor Pringle, said the decision had come “after a justifiably intense reaction from the global academic community and beyond.”
Dr. Pringle said in a telephone interview from London that Cambridge University Press would also make the reposted papers available for free, doing away with the hefty charge that one-time readers of the site must usually pay.

“It puts academic freedom where it needs to be, which is ahead of economic concerns,” Professor Pringle said.

Cambridge University Press said in an online statement that its decision to cut the papers had been temporary, ahead of planned talks with the publishing agent that have not been held yet.
“The university’s academic leadership and the press have agreed to reinstate the blocked content, with immediate effect, so as to uphold the principle of academic freedom on which the university’s work is founded,” it said.
Now, though, the press may have to prepare itself for potential repercussions from the Chinese censors, who are unlikely to be happy with the public rebuke and reversal.
It was unclear how the 315 academic articles that they said offended official sensibilities would now be censored, if at all.
“If China perceives the reversal as a matter of face or a challenge or whatever, I imagine it will escalate upward and Cambridge University Press will face further issues with China,” said Jonathan Sullivan, a China studies scholar at the University of Nottingham who is on China Quarterly’s executive committee.
“It is very gratifying for the China studies community, and the integrity of our field, but the scope of the ‘victory’ is narrow.”

China Quarterly has long been one of the world’s most prestigious venues for research on modern China.
Increasingly it has published work by scholars in or originally from China.
The latest issue of the journal includes papers on ideological currents in journalism education and on political tension in Hong Kong.
But a Chinese agency that manages imported publications told the press to cut papers and book reviews on subjects including Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, the Cultural Revolution and the 1989 crackdown on student-led protests based in Tiananmen Square.
At first, Cambridge University Press went along.
“We complied with this initial request to remove individual articles, to ensure that other academic and educational materials we publish remain available to researchers and educators in this market,” the press said last week in a statement online.
Several academics issued letters and statements denouncing the decision, and one started a petition that called for a boycott of the press if it did not reverse its decision.
“As academics, we believe in the free and open exchange of ideas and information on all topics not just those we agree with,” said the petition started by Christopher Balding, an associate professor at the Peking University HSBC Business School in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen.
“It is disturbing to academics and universities worldwide that China is attempting to export its censorship on topics that do not fit its preferred narrative.”
Professor Balding said in an interview on Monday that he welcomed the latest decision by Cambridge University Press, but that research and publishing still risked buckling to political or economic pressure from China.
“What I hope is that this doesn’t end the discussion among universities, academics, and publishing houses outside of China,” Professor Balding said.
“Hopefully, this will prompt greater thinking about how to effectively engage with China. Continued acquiescence is not the answer.”

Perfidious Albion

Cambridge University Press faces backlash after bowing to China censorship pressure
By Simon Denyer

A student walks through the quadrangle of King's College, Cambridge, Nov. 24, 2005. 

BEIJING — Cambridge University Press faces a major backlash from academics after bowing to Chinese government demands to censor an important academic journal.
CUP announced Friday it had removed 300 articles and book reviews from a version of the “China Quarterly” website available in China at the request of the government.
The articles touched on topics deemed sensitive to the Communist Party, including the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989, policies towards Tibetan and Uighur ethnic minorities, Taiwan and the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution.
The articles would still be available on a version of China Quarterly accessible outside China.
The demand to remove the articles came from China’s General Administration of Press and Publication, which warned that if they were not removed the entire website would be made unavailable in China.
But academics around the world have accused CUP of selling out and becoming complicit in censoring Chinese academic debate and history.
In an open letter published on Medium.com, James A. Millward, a professor of history at Georgetown University called the decision “a craven, shameful and destructive concession” to the People’s Republic of China’s growing censorship regime.
Millward said the decision overruled the peer-review process and the views of editors about what should be in the journal and was a “clear violation of academic independence inside and outside China.”
He added it was akin to the New York Times or the Economist publishing versions of their papers inside China omitting content deemed offensive to the Party. 

“And as my colleagues Greg Distelhorst and Jessica Chen Weiss have written, ‘the censored history of China will literally bear the seal of Cambridge University.’”
“It is noteworthy that the topics and peoples CUP has so blithely chosen to censor comprise mainly minorities and the politically disadvantaged. Would you censor content about Black Lives Matter, Mexican immigrants or Muslims in your American publication list if Trump asked you to do to?,” he asked.
In a tweet, James Leibold, an associate professor at Melbourne’s La Trobe University, whose scholarship about the Xinjiang region was among the censored articles, called the decision “a shameful act."
And a petition is now circulating among academics warning that Cambridge University Press could face a boycott if it continues to acquiesce to the Chinese government’s demands.
“It is disturbing to academics and universities worldwide that China is attempting to export its censorship on topics that do not fit its preferred narrative,” Christopher Balding, an associate professor at Peking University HSBC School of Business in Shenzhen, China, the petition’s originator, wrote.
“If Cambridge University Press acquiesces to the demands of the Chinese government, we as academics and universities reserve the right to pursue other actions including boycotts of Cambridge University Press and related journals.”
The petition requests that only academics and people working in higher education sign, and give their affiliation. 

By Monday afternoon in China it had attracted 290 signatures on change.org although it could not be immediately established how many signatories were academics.
In a statement, CUP said it has complied with the initial request “to ensure that other academic and educational materials we publish remain available to researchers and educators in this market.”
It added it had planned meetings “to discuss our position with the relevant agencies” at the Beijing Book Fair this week.

Experts said the decision was part of a broader crackdown on free expression in China under Xi Jinping that has intensified this year as the Communist Party becomes more confident and less inclined to compromise.

In the past, China's system of censorship, nicknamed the Great Firewall of China, has concentrated mainly on Chinese-language material, and has been less preoccupied with blocking English-language material, which is accessed only by a narrow elite. 

But that may now be changing.
“The China Quarterly is very reputable within academic circles, and it does not promote the "positive" energy that China wants to see,” said Qiao Mu, a former professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University who was demoted and ultimately left the university after criticizing the government. 

“Instead, it touches on historical reflection, talks about Cultural Revolution and other errors that China has made in the past. These are things that China does not like and does not want to be discussed.”
Qiao said the decision would have a negative effect on already limited academic freedom in China.

“For Chinese academics, the effect is mainly psychological,” he said. 

“They will think more when doing research and impose stricter self-censorship.”
Internet companies have also faced similar dilemmas: Google chose to withdraw from China rather than submit to censorship, and has been displaced here by a censored Chinese search engine, Baidu.com. 

But LinkedIn has submitted to censorship and continues to operate here. 

Apple recently complied with a demand from the Chinese government to remove many VPN (virtual private network) applications that netizens use to access blocked websites, from its App Store in China.
Millward argued that Cambridge as a whole has more power than it perhaps realized in a battle of wills with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
“China is not going to ban everything branded ‘Cambridge’ from the Chinese realm, because to do so would turn this into a big, public issue, and that is precisely what the authorities hope to avoid,” he wrote.
“To do so would, moreover, pit the CCP against a household name that every Chinese person who knows anything about education reveres as one of the world’s oldest and best universities. And Chinese, probably more than anyone else, revere universities, especially name-brand ones.
Cambridge University Press has made available a complete list of the censored articles here.

Academic Prostitution

Cambridge University Press faces boycott over China censorship

By Tom Phillips in Beijing

Cambridge University Press was urged to refuse censorship requests for not only its China Quarterly journal but also any other topics or publications. 

Cambridge University Press must reject China’s “disturbing” censorship demands or face a potential boycott of its publications, academics have warned.
In a petition published on Monday, academics from around the world denounced China’s attempts to “export its censorship on topics that do not fit its preferred narrative”.
The appeal came after it emerged that Cambridge University Press (CUP), the world’s oldest publishing house, had complied with a Chinese instruction to block online access to more than 300 politically sensitive articles from its highly respected China Quarterly journal. 

The blacklisted articles covered topics including Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, the Tiananmen massacre and the cult of personality some claim is emerging around Xi Jinping.
The petition attacked CUP’s move and urged it “to refuse the censorship request not just for the China Quarterly but on any other topics, journals or publication that have been requested by the Chinese government”.
“If Cambridge University Press acquiesces to the demands of the Chinese government, we as academics and universities reserve the right to pursue other actions including boycotts of Cambridge University Press and related journals,” it added.
The author of the petition, Peking University economics professor Christopher Balding, said he hoped it would serve as an alert to how China had dramatically stepped up its efforts to stifle free thinking since Xi became its top leader in 2012and began a severe crackdown on academia and civil society. 

“I think this is an increasing problem that really needs to be addressed much more forcefully by the international academic community,” he said.
Balding complained that while it was fashionable for academics and publishers to attack US president Donald Trump, they were far more cautious about criticising Xi’s authoritarian regime for fear of reprisals. 

“Standing up to the Chinese government involves definite costs. It is not an easy thing to do. There will be potentially punitive measures taken against you. But if it is a principle that is right in the UK and if it is right in the US, then it should also be right in China. And there will be times when you have to accept costs associated with principles.”
Another signatory, Griffith University anthropologist David Schak, said he believed Cambridge University Press had sullied its centuries-old reputation by bowing to China’s demands. 

“Cambridge seems to be the one who is now censoring rather than China, even though they are doing it at the request of China ... They have soiled their copy book.”
Schak added: “It makes you wonder what they are in the business of doing ... I thought university presses were there to publish good research.”
“They are acceding to China whereas [they should have said]: ‘What you do, we can’t stop you from doing that but we are not going to do that ourselves.’ You put the onus entirely back on the Chinese government rather than cooperating with them.”

Suzanne Pepper, a Hong Kong-based writer whose piece on politics in the former colony was among the blocked China Quarterly articles, said she expected censorship from China’s rulers but not from CUP. 

“It makes them complicit, accomplices in the fine art of censorship, which we are all supposed to deplore,” she said.
Chinese intellectuals also lamented the attempt to limit their access to foreign research. 

“This whole case makes me feel extremely disappointed,” Li Jingrui, a Chinese novelist, wrote on Weibo, China’s answer to Twitter. 

In an oblique reference to China’s one-party state, she added: “I’m left with the feeling that there is absolutely no escape since every single breath on Earth belongs to the king.”